SummaryMarried World War II nurse Claire Randall (Caitriona Balfe) time travels to 1743 century Scotland, where she meets Jamie Fraser (Sam Heughan) in this adaption of Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon.
SummaryMarried World War II nurse Claire Randall (Caitriona Balfe) time travels to 1743 century Scotland, where she meets Jamie Fraser (Sam Heughan) in this adaption of Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon.
There are undoubtedly bigger storylines brewing in the distance — with the Revolutionary War looming, it's becoming more and more clear that Jamie, in particular, is going to need to make a definitive choice regarding which side to align himself with — but the show's choice to limit its initial scope, pulling back from charging so rapidly into yet another life-changing conflict for all of these characters, is one that benefits the series at its current point and as a whole.
Excellent story telling and casting. The interpretation of the tv series from the books is really well done. Historical fiction with a romance story. What is not to love?
Of the two parallel narratives that unfold in the first five episodes, Jamie’s is the more eventful and, because of when and where it unfolds, the one that feels more in keeping with the Outlander sensibility. ... Both of their [Balfe and Heughan's] performances feel deeper and more emotionally resonant than they have before.
Outlander is never more engrossing than when a scene emphasizes Claire's reactions as she's forced to decide whether to say what she really thinks of a man's behavior or assertion or recitation of policy, or err on the side of silence.
The swords and the muck may bring Game of Thrones to mind, but where Game has no heroes, Outlander has at least three, with the foremost being the one Balfe imbues with beauty, brains and spunk.
War looming over these episode threatens to recycle plot points in a new setting. The spark of a good season is still there. The passion could use rekindling. [2 Nov 2018, p.46]
The resulting series is a bit of a snooze--handsome, yes, but about as dramatically compelling as the cover of a Harlequin Romance, and too flaccid to make hearts go pitter-pat.
Most of us call it 'Droughtlander,' as we've waited so long for the gaps. Hence, during the droughts, read the books, which as the origin for the series & a companion to the series make Outlander all-the-more historically vital & addictive.
Good acting, beautiful production values, and interesting settings marred by bad writing and an overemphasis on gore and sex. Sex scenes can be interesting in porn, but they just demolish the magic in mainstream entertainment and fiction. So does excessive gore, with some exceptions (The Thing, Saving Private Ryan). And then there are the episode-long torture scenes, and worse, the episode-long scenes where the villain just talks and talks and talk and tortures the viewer. Still, I'll probably check out the latest season, at least for an episode or two.
Never seen anything like it ever... Capture, ****, danger, ****... Time travel, ****... **** after dinner, after Scrabble... **** **** ****...
Seriously, if Outlander was written by a man, there would have been uproar.
After all the hype.. I decided to give it a watch, couldn't get through to the end... Sorry if I offend anybody but Outlander is a female **** fantasy. Been to lot of forums to see if this is the case... Every book minus one has **** in it... Lovely... No thanks...